One small point. The mention of Tina Brown serves as a warning attribution for any readers like myself who remember her carnage at The New Yorker.
2
So what if Mr Soros contributed funding or not? Why would matter? He has money and can spend it like anyone else.
1
Just like the Koch brothers can spend it however they like.
Re; Women in the World article. It seems the big issue was over the term "spontaneous" being used to describe the Womans March last weekend.
Aw, gee...it wasn't perfectly spontaneous...that a few million women (mostly) and some men, didn't actually wake up on Saturday and head to Wash DC, or a more local march site. Or make a drunken pledge on Friday night to; "Hey, another round, then lets drive all night and go to Dee-Cee.."
So there was some pre-planning done, and various agents seeking to hype the event, called it "spontaneous". News sites too! Oh Henny Penny!
All seems so conspiratorial, perhaps the most egregious of mortal sins.
Not!
Its patriotic for the GOP to have been using their alternative facts (that didnt start with Trump!) for decades now. Perfectly okay for the Koch Bro's to have been super-funding various freedom-stealing conservative initiatives for decades as their patriotic duty, and sometimes the will of their God.
But a not-so-spontaneous protest march against the Right and their new kissing cousins the Alt-Right/Neo-Nazi's, newly minted Prez. and his attacks on women's rights, minorities, and everyone else not desirous of a racist, sexist, xenophobic, unethical Government - and it was funded in parts (not all) is a huge scandal!
The sky is falling! The Left has some funding and some parties lied about the spontaneous-ness of events! O-M-G! The Left actually organized something and it actually came to fruition! (which is the real news!)
Aw, gee...it wasn't perfectly spontaneous...that a few million women (mostly) and some men, didn't actually wake up on Saturday and head to Wash DC, or a more local march site. Or make a drunken pledge on Friday night to; "Hey, another round, then lets drive all night and go to Dee-Cee.."
So there was some pre-planning done, and various agents seeking to hype the event, called it "spontaneous". News sites too! Oh Henny Penny!
All seems so conspiratorial, perhaps the most egregious of mortal sins.
Not!
Its patriotic for the GOP to have been using their alternative facts (that didnt start with Trump!) for decades now. Perfectly okay for the Koch Bro's to have been super-funding various freedom-stealing conservative initiatives for decades as their patriotic duty, and sometimes the will of their God.
But a not-so-spontaneous protest march against the Right and their new kissing cousins the Alt-Right/Neo-Nazi's, newly minted Prez. and his attacks on women's rights, minorities, and everyone else not desirous of a racist, sexist, xenophobic, unethical Government - and it was funded in parts (not all) is a huge scandal!
The sky is falling! The Left has some funding and some parties lied about the spontaneous-ness of events! O-M-G! The Left actually organized something and it actually came to fruition! (which is the real news!)
1
So the Right is angry that the the Left gets some funding for its causes, events, initiatives...? From Soros?
Am I missing something? Its perfectly okay, and apparently a patriotic duty of the Right to have their ideological initiatives funded by various parties, the Koch Bro's coming instantly to mind. But the Left are evil for doing the same ?
Its somehow cannon fodder for the Right and now their Alt-right kissing cousins to assail the Left...?
I for one am happy there's a George Soros out there funding Left leaning initiatives. The Left needs some more of that...as its pretty obvious how much "good" such funding has done for the Right and Alt-Right in getting their goals met.
Am I missing something? Its perfectly okay, and apparently a patriotic duty of the Right to have their ideological initiatives funded by various parties, the Koch Bro's coming instantly to mind. But the Left are evil for doing the same ?
Its somehow cannon fodder for the Right and now their Alt-right kissing cousins to assail the Left...?
I for one am happy there's a George Soros out there funding Left leaning initiatives. The Left needs some more of that...as its pretty obvious how much "good" such funding has done for the Right and Alt-Right in getting their goals met.
1
Once again, addressing only concerns from liberals.
I agree that The Times should divest and remove its logo from this site. In addition to disseminating misinformation, its editors ignore readers' comments which they don't like from seeing the light of day.
After reading the tendentious and misleading headline of Asra Nomani's piece, which was accompanied by a large photo of Soros, I wrote a comment in the comment section provided on the site. When I clicked "submit"the screen showed "posting comment," but the comment was never published, though there was nothing inappropriate in it. I sent a second comment, asking why, with no result. I posted a third comment in reply to a particularly egregious suggestion that Trump should "investigate" Soros. That too was ignored.
Doe The Times want to be in business with prevaricators and censors?
After reading the tendentious and misleading headline of Asra Nomani's piece, which was accompanied by a large photo of Soros, I wrote a comment in the comment section provided on the site. When I clicked "submit"the screen showed "posting comment," but the comment was never published, though there was nothing inappropriate in it. I sent a second comment, asking why, with no result. I posted a third comment in reply to a particularly egregious suggestion that Trump should "investigate" Soros. That too was ignored.
Doe The Times want to be in business with prevaricators and censors?
7
Your readers might also want to look up her CV. I'm sure they'll change their minds about who she is, a woman well versed in of what she speaks and writes. To disavow her is shameful.
George W Bush's CV includes degrees from both Harvard and Yale. Just sayin'.
1
So, you're saying the writer of these great piece of investigative journalism wasn't accurate? You seem to be apologizing to readers taking exception with the piece.
Curious as to whether The Times is interested in finding or even connecting the dots.
Curious as to whether The Times is interested in finding or even connecting the dots.
I noticed that it wasn't officially a 'Times piece but hoped some read it because it was full of truth. Hoped at some point the NYT would actually come to its senses and start connecting the dots along with reporting some actual FACTS regarding the Obamas presidency.
Oh well.
Oh well.
"Full of truth?"
Then she could tell us the size of Soros' contributions to each organization, and what percentage of their budgets it constitutes. That would allow us to judge the reliability of her claim that somehow Soros drives their agendas. The ACLU is a large, nstional organization. Local 1199 SEIU is one of the largest unions in NYC. The claim that Soros controls them is laughable on its face.
And she presented zero evidence that Soros organized the march, none.
Then she could tell us the size of Soros' contributions to each organization, and what percentage of their budgets it constitutes. That would allow us to judge the reliability of her claim that somehow Soros drives their agendas. The ACLU is a large, nstional organization. Local 1199 SEIU is one of the largest unions in NYC. The claim that Soros controls them is laughable on its face.
And she presented zero evidence that Soros organized the march, none.
1
Huh...try as I might, the "Men of the World" NYT subsidiary website keeps returning a 404 error message. Perhaps you could get a webmaster (or section chief) working on that. Seems like a good place to put articles like that patronizing piece over the weekend talking about the tough schedule for fathers while mommy went to see Madonna at the march.
2
NYT may be drawing indirect praise from Beck, but not from Bannon! At this point it's actually arguable that Breitbart and the NYT are the polar opposites that responsible citizens should read with the goal of finding the truth somewhere in the middle. His obnoxiously phrased point, that the paper has evolved into a campaign arm for the Left, has a ring of truth to it. What is entirely appropriate for a Charles Blow to opine about has bled into the front page, where we now see "Lie" in the headlines. Is "Liar" far behind? I hope the Times will snap out of it and return to its roots, disinterested reporting, and steer clear of membership in the the tabloids club.
If Trump says something that is demonstrably, provably untrue - which he has repeatedly done - then a word is needed to describe it. What word that should be has been the subject of much recent debate. I'm of the party that argues that motive, intent, and awareness matter: 'lie' is a choice that inevitably implies he knowing perpetrated an untruth with the intent to deceive his audience.
So, your other explanations (or 'alternative facts'?) are:
1. He's stupid, intellectually lazy, and/or ignorant, willfully or otherwise; and thus, that he believed what he was saying, despite the ready availability of evidence to disprove it.
2. He's like a spoiled child, engaging in magical thinking in the belief that simply refusing to accept a reality will change it, or that if it is real, his flunkies, like overindulgent parents, will rush to ameliorate it at the first sign of a tantrum. In such a case he knows the truth but thinks he can change it simply by denying it (cf. climate change).
3. He's an amoral psychopath, indifferent to the truth or falsity of what he's saying at any given time. He just says whatever suits his immediate purpose or whim.
As the old saying goes, yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice. Bearing in mind these four options aren't necessarily mutually exclusive - any or several could be in play at any given time.
So, your other explanations (or 'alternative facts'?) are:
1. He's stupid, intellectually lazy, and/or ignorant, willfully or otherwise; and thus, that he believed what he was saying, despite the ready availability of evidence to disprove it.
2. He's like a spoiled child, engaging in magical thinking in the belief that simply refusing to accept a reality will change it, or that if it is real, his flunkies, like overindulgent parents, will rush to ameliorate it at the first sign of a tantrum. In such a case he knows the truth but thinks he can change it simply by denying it (cf. climate change).
3. He's an amoral psychopath, indifferent to the truth or falsity of what he's saying at any given time. He just says whatever suits his immediate purpose or whim.
As the old saying goes, yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice. Bearing in mind these four options aren't necessarily mutually exclusive - any or several could be in play at any given time.
5
NMerton, "a campaign arm for the left?" Somehow I missed that endorsement of Bernie Sanders somehow. Got a link to it?
1
Try gas-lighting to explain Trump and his ilk.
So, from that "About Us" part of the Women in the World site, here's the fourth paragraph:
"In 2015, Women in the World formed a joint venture with The New York Times to partner on further expansion, including events in Dubai, London, and New Delhi—as well as creation of a new digital home for the brand on nytimes.com. While Women in the World retains editorial control of its content, The New York Times is a partner in the business."
Dubai, huh? So the Times is also OK with cozying up to monarchist slave drivers?
"In 2015, Women in the World formed a joint venture with The New York Times to partner on further expansion, including events in Dubai, London, and New Delhi—as well as creation of a new digital home for the brand on nytimes.com. While Women in the World retains editorial control of its content, The New York Times is a partner in the business."
Dubai, huh? So the Times is also OK with cozying up to monarchist slave drivers?
7
So, it's not the Times. The Times just pays part of the bills and provides a place for these folks to publish. Sorry, but that's nonsense. It's like me saying I'm not responsible for that dog embarrassing itself on your begonias, I just own it and feed it laxatives.
8
Yes, this paper must fight every article that doesn't reflect Democratic point of view, and the Public Editor's job is to hold the paper to this standard.
2
Adam Bryant, whose duties include overseeing Women in the World, offers the lame promise to look again "to see if there is more we can do to explain" the relationship with the website. What needs to be done is simple: sell off Women in the World. Let Tina Brown cozy up with the rightwing media.
2
Sorry...if you are "affiliated" you own the fall-out when the affiliation drops the lemon.
Another evasive response from those in authority at the NY Times.
Another evasive response from those in authority at the NY Times.
13
As a subscriber to the Times, your business investment in Women in the World looks like a waste of mine.
Is there no way you can at least keep that publication accountable, not just to financial results but to objectivity and seriousness? Your explanation here omits showing any such concern, let alone solution.
Is there no way you can at least keep that publication accountable, not just to financial results but to objectivity and seriousness? Your explanation here omits showing any such concern, let alone solution.
6
(Continued from prior submission.)
I am concerned when the readership of preeminent national newspapers and their digital extensions are manipulated by those posing as journalists but espousing their personal agendas. Personally held views, like one's vote, are a private matter and do not belong in newspaper articles posing as investigative journalism. Perhaps, letters to the Editor serve the purpose of expressing personal viewpoints while not influencing the reader who may agree or disagree. Articles serve an entirely different purpose and do influence our absorption of the world around us.
In an article published by the Washington Post on November 10, 2016, and in a subsequent Facebook post from the airport in Milwaukee and interviews on CNN and Fox Cable, Ms. Asra Nomani plucked our emotional strings and abused her position as a journalist purportedly giving a voice to rural Americans who do not have her platform. I believe she is a hypocrite exploiting the raw nerves and fears of Americans in their deep divisions. Furthermore, her source material for her outlandish statements in the above mentioned article was the illegally obtained and Wikileaks leaked emails from the DNC hacked computers. What is the source of her Soros claims? She writes "alternative facts".
I am concerned when the readership of preeminent national newspapers and their digital extensions are manipulated by those posing as journalists but espousing their personal agendas. Personally held views, like one's vote, are a private matter and do not belong in newspaper articles posing as investigative journalism. Perhaps, letters to the Editor serve the purpose of expressing personal viewpoints while not influencing the reader who may agree or disagree. Articles serve an entirely different purpose and do influence our absorption of the world around us.
In an article published by the Washington Post on November 10, 2016, and in a subsequent Facebook post from the airport in Milwaukee and interviews on CNN and Fox Cable, Ms. Asra Nomani plucked our emotional strings and abused her position as a journalist purportedly giving a voice to rural Americans who do not have her platform. I believe she is a hypocrite exploiting the raw nerves and fears of Americans in their deep divisions. Furthermore, her source material for her outlandish statements in the above mentioned article was the illegally obtained and Wikileaks leaked emails from the DNC hacked computers. What is the source of her Soros claims? She writes "alternative facts".
2
Glen Beck is mentioned only in the headline and. He first paragraph. The headline makes it appear that the article is partly about Glen Beck, which is misleading.
@Gene Venable,
Please don't use the word "misleading". It can drew an unwanted comparison to a person that these reporters don't want be compared to.
Please don't use the word "misleading". It can drew an unwanted comparison to a person that these reporters don't want be compared to.
I'm not familiar with the article or site in question, however, I am concerned that NYT not become a platform to espouse views that are contrary to its principles and truth.
I've had a change of heart about Glenn Beck since I caught the televised interview of him while on a camping vacation with his family. Since his illness, he had moderated his vitriolic far right rhetoric and even owned and regretted his mistakes that hurt and harmed many, especially the Obama administration. I respect that change even as I despise the immoderation that led to the derision and division of today's America, in part because of Beck's views in the past.
Having said that, I am concerned the NYT gave Asra Nomani a platform to air her views as a journalist with an agenda, not the impartial information required to make informed decisions. I have yet to read her article, printed by NYT apparently, in which she apparently associated the Women's March on January 21, 2017 with Soros and whether there is any truth in her claim or just another "alternative fact" - a lie. Even if the billionaire provided some financial support, which is his right in a free country in the same manner as conservative billionaires finance their causes, attendance was voluntary and self funded. Furthermore, I doubt Soros had any hand in the marches around the world in solidarity with the marchers across the US, red and blue states.
(To be continued.)
I've had a change of heart about Glenn Beck since I caught the televised interview of him while on a camping vacation with his family. Since his illness, he had moderated his vitriolic far right rhetoric and even owned and regretted his mistakes that hurt and harmed many, especially the Obama administration. I respect that change even as I despise the immoderation that led to the derision and division of today's America, in part because of Beck's views in the past.
Having said that, I am concerned the NYT gave Asra Nomani a platform to air her views as a journalist with an agenda, not the impartial information required to make informed decisions. I have yet to read her article, printed by NYT apparently, in which she apparently associated the Women's March on January 21, 2017 with Soros and whether there is any truth in her claim or just another "alternative fact" - a lie. Even if the billionaire provided some financial support, which is his right in a free country in the same manner as conservative billionaires finance their causes, attendance was voluntary and self funded. Furthermore, I doubt Soros had any hand in the marches around the world in solidarity with the marchers across the US, red and blue states.
(To be continued.)
She's well versed in many issues given the data and her Prominence in media. She was one of a Daniel Pearl's colleagues. And one of the first to ask Who Really Killec zdaniel Pearl.
Dorothy, by her own spread sheet, Soros or his charities contributed to 56 (counted here) or 65 (by my count) of the 452 organizations she looked at. At MOST, that adds up to 14%. And how much control does Soros wield over a large national organization like the ACLU, or even smaller ones like the Brennan Center for Justice, the American Humanist Association or the Drug Policy Alliance? She never even attempts to answer the question, leaving everything to insinuation.
No sale.
No sale.
2
Liberal – feminist… Trump supporter? What more could a woman, an individual woman, do to prostate herself to the big brat mouther (texter) & insinuator of might-makes-right. (I still wish for the combination of144 characters technology with emoji tech, so the boss can, with greater brevity and clarity, express himself).
At least Naomi didn't insinuate that the protesters should/should not bring their firearms to the protests, as the future ex president – if I'm not mistaken – did for a Hillary event.
If anything is not more inciting than some of the blurbs and faux-pass of our future ex-president, It is some of the statements he has made, cleverly hidden behind bluster (puffed cheeks) and hubris. Yes, it is hilarious, As Alec Baldwin portrays so well, but it is also (unhappy yellow emoji w/ frown).
At least Naomi didn't insinuate that the protesters should/should not bring their firearms to the protests, as the future ex president – if I'm not mistaken – did for a Hillary event.
If anything is not more inciting than some of the blurbs and faux-pass of our future ex-president, It is some of the statements he has made, cleverly hidden behind bluster (puffed cheeks) and hubris. Yes, it is hilarious, As Alec Baldwin portrays so well, but it is also (unhappy yellow emoji w/ frown).
Please tell the folks at The Times that I think they're doing a great job covering Trump and they shouldn't back down.
I believe it's not the great job in covering trump but the not so great job in covering FOR Obama.
I went to the 100K people Womens March in Denver with a car load of my friends. My husband went to the 7,000 people Womens March in our red red conservative town.
Tell Glenn Beck to send our checks - he seems to know who is funding and handing out cash. Or is he just another Trump-style liar?
signed, Waiting.
Tell Glenn Beck to send our checks - he seems to know who is funding and handing out cash. Or is he just another Trump-style liar?
signed, Waiting.
4
If you followed Beck you'd know he has connected many dots. The NYT has talked to him about many things in meetings they've had with him recently.
They aren't going to admit that but...privately many, esp the millenials, are asking why reporters aren't telling all the truths.
They aren't going to admit that but...privately many, esp the millenials, are asking why reporters aren't telling all the truths.
I too stumbled on this article, trying to figure out if this was a fake news site and how it could possibly relate to the NYTimes. Via iphone all I could find was a statement that claimed "Women in the World" was somehow linked to the NYTimes. I am appalled to find out that is true. NYTimes needs to make the nature of their affiliation clear on their affiliate's website, and reconsider the connection all together. This was appalling drivel and it is disappointing for it to be connected to the NYTIMES in any way shape or form.
4
Somebody help me here. Soros is an "international Jew"? How does rampant anti-Semitism coexist with pro-Israeli sentiments and approval of the Trump son-in-law?
19
Because, don't you know, it's "international Jewry" responsible for all these demonstrations. Goebbels would be proud at the way the right wing loons have blamed this massive unrest by "paid protestors" getting money from Soros. Funny, my check hasn't arrived.
2
It seems Soros has been confused with Trump who paid people to applaud for his run-announcement, and who populates press conferences with paid staff to make-like a laugh-track for him when the cameras will not show the source of applause. ONce again--trump projects his own scheming, manipulation, and criminal behavior onto others.
10
My husband sent me a link to this and I could tell it wasn't editorially linked to The Times in a minute! The content was overtly hyper-charged and the grammar was less than newsprint worthy. I'm just shocked that it's not more obvious to anyone who reads The Times regularly!
4
Problem is, there really is a link to the Times, and the Times should reconsider hosting the site unless its editorial disconnect from the Times is made crystal clear.
2
As one who has read the NYT since 1968, when one of the 8th grade social studies teachers kept a copy in her classroom (not my teacher, but she and her art-teacher husband were popular with us aspiring 'intellectuals'), I can say, unfortunately, that I'm not shocked. On grounds of both hyperbolic rhetoric and less than impeccable grammar and syntax, the NYT is not quite what it once was. This said, I didn't click through to the Women in the World, so I'm certainly willing to accept the proposal that WinW's site was that much further below even the somewhat less rigorous editorial standards of today's NYT.
1
I totally agree with ACW concerning the less than impeccable grammar and syntax to be found in the Times nowadays. Therefore, the shock that readers did not perceive tha lack of editorial link to The Times is misplaced.
1
These people are in denial by making up yet another conspiracy theory. Washington was only one location for this spontaneous, self-organizing demonstration across the globe. In the red state of Texas, 50,000 showed up in Austin, and 20,00 in Houston. Here in Dallas, the number was between 5000 and 8000. There were no speeches, no buses, no professional organizers that needed funding - just a lot of people with their homemade signs.
4
That site can be housed on the NYTimes site with a completely different URL. Doing that and removing the T logo should help avoid confusion in the future.
6
How are they "completely" different served from NYT domain?
3
Nomani is "a liberal feminist Trump supporter"? An oxymoron if I ever heard one. How any woman, feminist or not, can support Trump still boggles the mind.
21
She says she's a Muslim, too.
1
Tina Brown poisons everything she touches. Cut her loose.
4
First of all, who cares what Glenn Becks thinks... about the Times or any otehr subject?
Secondly, if Soros did finance the march, more power to him. Soros for President!
Secondly, if Soros did finance the march, more power to him. Soros for President!
7
Thank you for discussing the column that I published regarding my concerns about the partisanship of the "Women's March on Washington." I'm happy to address any questions that readers may have. Best, Asra Nomani
2
Dear Asra: What specific information do you have about the size of Soros' contributions to the 56 or so organizations you cited? What proportion is his contribution of each organization's budget?
How do you expect us to believe that he drives the agenda of large organizations such as Local 1199 of SEIU, the ACLU, or even the much smaller Drug Policy Alliance or American Humanist Association?
How do you expect us to believe that he drives the agenda of large organizations such as Local 1199 of SEIU, the ACLU, or even the much smaller Drug Policy Alliance or American Humanist Association?
4
What hard evidence do you have to substantiate your claims? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
1
To save anyone from having to read the original article, Asra Nomani cites the following organizations as having ties to Soros: American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Planned Parenthood. Seriously? No one can be a "liberal feminist" if they see those organizations as some kinds of pawns of George Soros.
7
At the this time, when the Public Editor fights to keep honesty in the paper's coverage, commenters already asked the Public Editor to see why the Times often skips the word "illegal" in front of "immigrants" when writing about Trump's plans?
2
Well, Trump's latest edict regarding the seven Muslim-majority countries bars legal immigrants and refugees. Trump himself doesn't distinguish. I'm one who's in favour of enforcing our existing immigration laws, which is a far cry from what Trump is doing, and of reconsidering and reforming them, which is absolutely not what Trump is doing. I do agree that the NYT keeps blurring the line between legal and illegal, and substituting the Orwellian 'undocumented' when it bothers to recognise the distinction at all. Sadly, in their zeal to promote a 'liberal-progressive-whatever' party line they don't realise this act of dishonesty actually undermines their position, at least to those for whom words still should have meaning and arguments should have intellectual integrity.
1
You vend it? You own it.
You might want to do better.
You might want to do better.
10
PE: "... there is the familiar “T” logo of The New York Times ..."
That "T" logo is a registered trademark of the New York Times, so the legal arrangement between the two companies must allow WitW to use the logo.
Adam Bryant may need to do more than just "explain our relationship to Women in the World in their articles."
Source: uspto.gov web site
Registration Number 2959293
Registration Date June 7, 2005
That "T" logo is a registered trademark of the New York Times, so the legal arrangement between the two companies must allow WitW to use the logo.
Adam Bryant may need to do more than just "explain our relationship to Women in the World in their articles."
Source: uspto.gov web site
Registration Number 2959293
Registration Date June 7, 2005
5
What a lame response. Your "striving" has failed completely. How about actually doing something effective? Why do all these Times editors talk like losing quarterbacks on Monday morning? It's pathetic.
5
Because, in their own way, Ted, they ARE losing quarterbacks.
There is an unhealthy habit of Times's management of not doing their jobs or accepting responsibility when the stink bombs hit.
When are Sulzberger and Baquet going to get around to addressing this destructive habit?
There is an unhealthy habit of Times's management of not doing their jobs or accepting responsibility when the stink bombs hit.
When are Sulzberger and Baquet going to get around to addressing this destructive habit?
4
"“We strive to avoid any confusion on the part of our readers,"
Seriously? Without serious digging and knowing what you were looking for, 99.9% of readers would have assumed that this was NYTimes content and with this level of integration, it would appear that this was exactly what Adam Bryant wanted. From the Times 2020 review, this level of integration is also exactly what the Times is aiming at. Remember the old adage, When you sleep with @&*#, you get fleas.
Seriously? Without serious digging and knowing what you were looking for, 99.9% of readers would have assumed that this was NYTimes content and with this level of integration, it would appear that this was exactly what Adam Bryant wanted. From the Times 2020 review, this level of integration is also exactly what the Times is aiming at. Remember the old adage, When you sleep with @&*#, you get fleas.
20
Glenn Beck suffers from several of the same personality disorders as our soon to be Great Again Leader. And he is a racist jerk, too. 'Member? Oh yeah, I remember. Beck say "Obama has hate in his heart for white people." 'Member?
5
After all of the impoper comments that I have forwarded to the Public Editor, it is disappointing that this name-calling and ad homenim attack is still allowed.
"Standards? What standards? We don't need no stinkin' standards.
This seems to be more than just a pervasive attitude in the Times' newsroom.
"Standards? What standards? We don't need no stinkin' standards.
This seems to be more than just a pervasive attitude in the Times' newsroom.
I didn't think the comments in the NYT allowed for name calling. For the record, the NYT has met with Mr. Beck to ask what they can do better.
There is no room for name calling. I've never heard him name call. Apparently you've never watched or listened.
There is no room for name calling. I've never heard him name call. Apparently you've never watched or listened.
I was unaware of this news site. But I was very surprised this week when the real NYTimes' food story 'what to cook this week' plugged buying news glasses and linked to a site that sells them -- and give the Times a commission! Have I missed this before? This is shocking. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/dining/what-to-cook-this-week.html
3
Leslie, the Public Editor warned us this was coming when she weighed in on the Times' $30 million purchase of The Wirecutter/Sweet Home. Further, the 2020 report (risibly) insisted that Times readers hunger for advice from the Times.
It reminds me about a famous story about Winston Churchill (that may be apocryphal). Churchill was being challenged by an old dowager. He asked her: "Would you sleep with me for a million pounds?" "Um, well, I guess so." "Would you sleep with me for £10?" "Well, my word, sir. What do you think I am?" "Madam, we have established what you are. Now we are haggling over the price."
The Times has established what it is. It is merely haggling over the price.
It reminds me about a famous story about Winston Churchill (that may be apocryphal). Churchill was being challenged by an old dowager. He asked her: "Would you sleep with me for a million pounds?" "Um, well, I guess so." "Would you sleep with me for £10?" "Well, my word, sir. What do you think I am?" "Madam, we have established what you are. Now we are haggling over the price."
The Times has established what it is. It is merely haggling over the price.
2
'Further, the 2020 report (risibly) insisted that Times readers hunger for advice from the Times.'
Paul, I have so far resisted any temptation to click on the recently introduced 'Smarter Living' feature. I welcome opinion columns and op-eds, as well as arts criticism for books, movies, and plays. And even recipes and fashion, though I almost never try them out. But the 'Smarter Living' headlines are offensively pushy. Nine books Times editors say I must read? 'Must', my darlings, is a word for kings to use; you fall rather short of that mark. I'm interested in your opinions and consult them in making my decisions (if Kakutani hated a novel, I will at least check it out). But the tone of 'Smarter Living', like 'Times Insider' which I also shun, has too much of the tone of the 'cool kids' who will let you hang out behind the bleachers with them and appoint themselves the leader. Worse, it smacks of developing the NYT 'brand' as something of a cult .... but that would be a deeper, more disturbing discussion involving political and philosophical dogma.
Paul, I have so far resisted any temptation to click on the recently introduced 'Smarter Living' feature. I welcome opinion columns and op-eds, as well as arts criticism for books, movies, and plays. And even recipes and fashion, though I almost never try them out. But the 'Smarter Living' headlines are offensively pushy. Nine books Times editors say I must read? 'Must', my darlings, is a word for kings to use; you fall rather short of that mark. I'm interested in your opinions and consult them in making my decisions (if Kakutani hated a novel, I will at least check it out). But the tone of 'Smarter Living', like 'Times Insider' which I also shun, has too much of the tone of the 'cool kids' who will let you hang out behind the bleachers with them and appoint themselves the leader. Worse, it smacks of developing the NYT 'brand' as something of a cult .... but that would be a deeper, more disturbing discussion involving political and philosophical dogma.
3
I'm a chef, with a reflexive aversion to recipes, but I did recently try out a Times recipe, roasted butternut squash with farro, feta and mint (as salad leaves). It was quite good, except that there was WAY too much dressing for the amount of farro to be dressed. My two vegetarian daughters loved it.
I read Times Insider for kicks and giggles. In it, I found then Editorial Page Editor Andy Rosenthal claim an "absolute separation" between the news and opinion sections. Demonstrably false when Rosenthal himself invited Dean Baquet to sit in on the Board of Ed interview with candidate Trump, said by Rosenthal to be off the record. Some of that information was reported on Baquet's news pages very much on the record. That policy of off the record is indefensible and just plain obtuse. But it is consistent with the superiority complex evinced by "smarter living."
I read Times Insider for kicks and giggles. In it, I found then Editorial Page Editor Andy Rosenthal claim an "absolute separation" between the news and opinion sections. Demonstrably false when Rosenthal himself invited Dean Baquet to sit in on the Board of Ed interview with candidate Trump, said by Rosenthal to be off the record. Some of that information was reported on Baquet's news pages very much on the record. That policy of off the record is indefensible and just plain obtuse. But it is consistent with the superiority complex evinced by "smarter living."
2
The Times needs to adapt to the current environment and take steps to clearly delineate for the consumers of their content exactly in which category, news or opinion, each piece belongs. With so many think pieces, analysis, etc., it could be easy for readers to get confused about how to absorb what they read..
4
An "opinion" supporting lies is a lie.
7
First, the Times tolerates some number of fake articles on ad feeds, and now this. The brand New York Times, based on quality objective reporting which took over 150 years to build is being destroyed in a few years by marketing types trying to find a new business model in the digital age. We may look back in a few years and realized what they saved wasn't worth saving.
15
It is time for all Journalists to return to Real Journalism, and abandon the "cutesy" 'Jaw Dropping headlines that say nothing. I know what I need to Know on any given day, and do not need this Millenialistic Cutesy Provocation.
The media has created what may prove to be a horrendous and deadly nightmarish future under this megalomaniacal infant , Trump. He is Trumping all the work done to keep the Peace, to keep the climate under control, to respect Womankind.
In 1960, the NYTimes would have denied ANY and ALL time to a Bully, but as Trump was a Reality TV mogul, he was given the right to denegrate John Kasich, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina and the rest of the GOP lineup, without censure. He was allowed to perform his hate speeches on live TV. The other candidates were not "weak" they were refined and dignified, and you allowed a completely, rude and threatening man in a wig to destroy the Dignity of the Media.
Now is the timje to take off the kid gloves, admit you failed the American Public and expose his reality. Before he plunges us into Nuclear Holocaust.
The media has created what may prove to be a horrendous and deadly nightmarish future under this megalomaniacal infant , Trump. He is Trumping all the work done to keep the Peace, to keep the climate under control, to respect Womankind.
In 1960, the NYTimes would have denied ANY and ALL time to a Bully, but as Trump was a Reality TV mogul, he was given the right to denegrate John Kasich, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina and the rest of the GOP lineup, without censure. He was allowed to perform his hate speeches on live TV. The other candidates were not "weak" they were refined and dignified, and you allowed a completely, rude and threatening man in a wig to destroy the Dignity of the Media.
Now is the timje to take off the kid gloves, admit you failed the American Public and expose his reality. Before he plunges us into Nuclear Holocaust.
3
Cut that group loose.
5
It seems to me that this is more evidence of a systematic attempt to discredit the media--specifically the New York Times. It is ironic that our current president continuously disparages the media while while taking photo ops everyplace he goes. Like his friend Putin he wants to control the press and journalists beware.
I took part in the Women's March on Saturday because women's rights--and moreover human rights--are being trampled. It was the most positive day I've had in months and as far as I know George Soros had nothing to do with it. How low will they go? I'm truly afraid we haven't scratched the surface.
I took part in the Women's March on Saturday because women's rights--and moreover human rights--are being trampled. It was the most positive day I've had in months and as far as I know George Soros had nothing to do with it. How low will they go? I'm truly afraid we haven't scratched the surface.
6
What's ironic, Lany, is it is the Times that is shooting itself in the foot in its move into "the digital space".
What has become far more important to Times management is to be in the pace in any way it can rather than be in the right space in the right way.
The Times owns this one.
What has become far more important to Times management is to be in the pace in any way it can rather than be in the right space in the right way.
The Times owns this one.
1
Is the Times so unconscious of the world that it had no idea that providing a digital platform for an "affiliate site" could produce convenient accusations conflating web hosting with editorial agreement?
But I plowed through Nomani's spread sheet consideration of no fewer than 452 organizations involved with march planning. Someone found 56 financial links to Soros. My count was a little bit higher based on No ani checking off funding.
I myself am a contributor to a number of these organizations, including, but not limited to, ACLU, Amnesty International, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Drug Policy Alliance, and the American Humanist Association. Does that mean by Nomani's reckoning, I am paying marchers? Look, the idea that Soros provides financial support to Local 1199 of the SEIU is being interpreted that he controls that union is laughable on its face. Same with the ACLU. These are big, nationwide organizations, and simply saying that Soros or his organizations funded an organization, without indicating how much support as a fraction of total budget is completely unhelpful.
The Times needs to be extra vigilant in what kind of revenue it accepts. This is a case where they are tied to revenue sources. I wonder if Nomani thinks that Soros theoretically subscribing to the Times means per se that he influences it. Of course, this was the start, and the right wing news conjurers have also made the risible claim that Soros gave a $50 bill to every participant.
But I plowed through Nomani's spread sheet consideration of no fewer than 452 organizations involved with march planning. Someone found 56 financial links to Soros. My count was a little bit higher based on No ani checking off funding.
I myself am a contributor to a number of these organizations, including, but not limited to, ACLU, Amnesty International, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Drug Policy Alliance, and the American Humanist Association. Does that mean by Nomani's reckoning, I am paying marchers? Look, the idea that Soros provides financial support to Local 1199 of the SEIU is being interpreted that he controls that union is laughable on its face. Same with the ACLU. These are big, nationwide organizations, and simply saying that Soros or his organizations funded an organization, without indicating how much support as a fraction of total budget is completely unhelpful.
The Times needs to be extra vigilant in what kind of revenue it accepts. This is a case where they are tied to revenue sources. I wonder if Nomani thinks that Soros theoretically subscribing to the Times means per se that he influences it. Of course, this was the start, and the right wing news conjurers have also made the risible claim that Soros gave a $50 bill to every participant.
16
You need only look at Miami's caving on the "sanctuary city" issue to see how much the "free money" can affect the recipient's stance.
And if you are going to rail at the Koch brothers for their gifts to their favored political causes, you at least have to be somewhat critical of the Soros involvement to avoid proving to all that you are being hypocritical.
And if you are going to rail at the Koch brothers for their gifts to their favored political causes, you at least have to be somewhat critical of the Soros involvement to avoid proving to all that you are being hypocritical.
I'm sorry, Owl, but I missed the part where "I rail at the Koch Brothers for their gifts to their favored political causes."
I'm a little bit verklempt that David Koch gave a bolus of cash to the American Museum of Natural History to put his name on my absolute favorite place as a kid, the Hall of Dinosaurs.
But I don't think that either the Kochs, nor Soros, should be able to buy Congre$$critter$. No, sir, money is NOT speech.
I'm a little bit verklempt that David Koch gave a bolus of cash to the American Museum of Natural History to put his name on my absolute favorite place as a kid, the Hall of Dinosaurs.
But I don't think that either the Kochs, nor Soros, should be able to buy Congre$$critter$. No, sir, money is NOT speech.
1
Has the NYT investigated Ms Nomani's opinion piece? Is it correct or not?
3
Is it really confusion? Seems to me that The Times has been loading its pages, while also permitting all sorts of conservative corporate ads, with barely a bat of the eyelashes.
The Times has become a very conservative newspaper. The Upshot is populated by conservative columnists that spew out opinions more at home with a Cato Institute publication. The president of the American Enterprise Institute has been given a regular presence in the paper, while actual progressive voices on the Opinion page consist of Charles Blow and Paul Krugman. And let's point out the railing against Clinton's emails, while attacking progressive mayor Bill Deblasio at every turn.
This "confusion" over a right-wing opinion piece is part of a pattern.
The Times has become a very conservative newspaper. The Upshot is populated by conservative columnists that spew out opinions more at home with a Cato Institute publication. The president of the American Enterprise Institute has been given a regular presence in the paper, while actual progressive voices on the Opinion page consist of Charles Blow and Paul Krugman. And let's point out the railing against Clinton's emails, while attacking progressive mayor Bill Deblasio at every turn.
This "confusion" over a right-wing opinion piece is part of a pattern.
5
The Upshot right-wing? OK, we've entered Cloud Cuckoo Land. But aside from that, although the NYT has its editorial stance, as does the WSJ and pretty much every other publication that deals in news, its job is not to be a mouthpiece for 'progressive' dogma. Its distinctive credibility resides in the proposition that it does not tailor the news to fit its preferences and preconceptions, and that it fosters a lively debate in which all shades of opinion participate. To become what its detractors insist (wrongly) it already is, a sheer propaganda organ, would deny, in fact destroy, its raison d'etre, and emasculate its opinions by stripping them of credibility. We do not need another Pravda or Die Sturmer.
1
The sad part, ACW, over the past year, Publisher Sulzberger and Executive Editor Baquet have allowed through their actions, a legitimate argument that the Times has become a propaganda arm of the liberal estalishment and government,
1
I read the article in question. What it said was that Soros had funded organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, which sponsored the Washington march. The article provided no evidence of direct funding of the march by Soros or by the organizations he has funded. Thus, to say it provides evidence the Washington March was an Astroturf operation funded by Soros appears to be another Trumpian lie.
Also worth noting: a comment by the Soros organization that funds liberal groups, apparently added after initial publication.
Also worth noting: a comment by the Soros organization that funds liberal groups, apparently added after initial publication.
8
It would appear that the Soros organization isn't exactly immune from being a money-laundering one.
1
I know George Soros personally. Saying this was funded by him is yet another attempt to distract from the facts. it's a lie.
With barely any professional coordination, literally millions of Americans, I was one of them, across hundreds of cities, came together to protest this hateful, incompetent administration.
It was without a doubt this best thing I've seen happen in this Country in quite sometime . I for one, look forward to the next election cycle.
Get ready my dear Governors, Senators and Congressmen. I'm guessing your going to see the "populist revolt" you've been looking for next time around.
With barely any professional coordination, literally millions of Americans, I was one of them, across hundreds of cities, came together to protest this hateful, incompetent administration.
It was without a doubt this best thing I've seen happen in this Country in quite sometime . I for one, look forward to the next election cycle.
Get ready my dear Governors, Senators and Congressmen. I'm guessing your going to see the "populist revolt" you've been looking for next time around.
60
The nytimes response also does a disservice since it does not refute the assertion from these opinions about the original article that there is now less of a significance to these marches because of an alleged tie to Soros. Meaning, even if we buy it that Soros had funded the marches in some way, so what?! Are those who marched going to buy it that their work was any less meaningful because of a tie to Soros. Don't allow these people credibility to every nonsense point they throw out by defending yourself to some 'gotcha' charge that means absolutely nothing.
4
I know all of the Koch brothers personally...
Does that mean that I can now claim their purity in your eyes?
That's exactly the type of logical mistake that the liberal likes to make.
Does that mean that I can now claim their purity in your eyes?
That's exactly the type of logical mistake that the liberal likes to make.
1
Exactly. The March raised $2 million online from people like me, right at this site.
https://www.crowdrise.com/womens-march-on-washington/fundraiser/womens-m...
https://www.crowdrise.com/womens-march-on-washington/fundraiser/womens-m...
Yeah, make that separation a little sharper. No reason to have an "NYTimes T" link directly to the "real" NYTimes.
26
Remember when Glenn Beck offered an oliver branch after the election... good lesson.
22
Horses & barn doors. Seems odd that The Times wouldn't've stipulated a more clear cut relationship on the home page to begin with.
20
NYT can make it clear that " these are not necessarily our views", but I doubt it will matter. We are now in an environment where " truthiness" trumps ( no pun intended or admitted to) sober discussion. When something sounds true to a tribe then all members accept it as fact, not interested in quibbling over nuance, much less actual facts.
12
You put your logo on it...you by the blow-back when the fan gets turned on.
This issue is as simple as that.
This issue is as simple as that.
2
I am glad the Times was not part of this, but what is really shocking to me is that we are about to be citizens of a country with a wall. We will be walled in! We will no longer feel like we live in "the land of the free and home of the brave." We will be forced to live in a gated community.
8
Hi Glenn, I had been very encouraged by your recent efforts to stop polarizing our country, but it looks like that was just an attention getting manipulation no different from your past rants. The march last week was funded by each woman and man who appeared, fueled by kindness for each other and fear of being led by a person who has little regard for most of the Americans he supposedly represents, women, immigrants, and people of color. If I knew George Soros, I'd ask him to pay for our health care instead of sending me to a march. Seems kind of obvious.
48
I don't see why the Times would want its logo on any entity that it is editorially separate from. Explaining the relationship better is weak. Rather than provide a digital platform to Women in the World and be a business investor in it, the Times should simply sever its relationship ~ take back the platform and divest. Problem solved!
52
I agree. The NYT needs to divest, remove its logo, and let Women in the World fly on its own.
I'm sure some would say this raises the issue of suppressing opinions. The NYT has always printed op-eds with opinions other than its own editorial line, and even opened its pages to opponents. But the Soros article may go beyond a difference of opinion, into the realm of 'alternative facts', and is especially troubling when it links the NYT, by 'friend of a friend of a friend' association, to organisations like the Daily Stormer.
Given the particular business the NYT is in, and its ethical dimension, the issue of being a 'business investor' moves front and centre. Women in the World may not actually step over the line I envision, and there is traditionally a 'Chinese wall' between the business and editorial side. But whether in the name of free speech or business acumen, is there a point at which the NYT being a 'business investor' and thereby a promoter is like a vegetarian being a 'business investor' in a slaughterhouse, or the guy playing the piano in the parlour who officially isn't involved in what's going on with the girls in the rooms upstairs?
I'm sure some would say this raises the issue of suppressing opinions. The NYT has always printed op-eds with opinions other than its own editorial line, and even opened its pages to opponents. But the Soros article may go beyond a difference of opinion, into the realm of 'alternative facts', and is especially troubling when it links the NYT, by 'friend of a friend of a friend' association, to organisations like the Daily Stormer.
Given the particular business the NYT is in, and its ethical dimension, the issue of being a 'business investor' moves front and centre. Women in the World may not actually step over the line I envision, and there is traditionally a 'Chinese wall' between the business and editorial side. But whether in the name of free speech or business acumen, is there a point at which the NYT being a 'business investor' and thereby a promoter is like a vegetarian being a 'business investor' in a slaughterhouse, or the guy playing the piano in the parlour who officially isn't involved in what's going on with the girls in the rooms upstairs?
11
Because there's money to be made, of course. That's why the Times is described as an investor.
It sounded fishy to me, so I came to the Times site and looked for that story. Nada. But I did find this. NYTimes, you need to fix this confusion.